Apropos the previous discussion about Apple being the only avenue via
which people can submit applications; this is exactly the reason why
Apple has to control things.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gruber/2635257578/

http://stevenscreek.com/iPhone/handyrandy.htm

http://stevenscreek.com/iPhone/athletecalc.htm

My eyes hurt just looking at the UI on these apps. This is what will
happen, Windows Mobile and Palm developers bringing in their "skills"
in UI and application design.

Cheers,
Diego

Diego,

> Apropos the previous discussion about Apple being the only avenue via
> which people can submit applications; this is exactly the reason why
> Apple has to control things.
>
> [..]

oh boy.

Diego a écrit :

> Apropos the previous discussion about Apple being the only avenue via
> which people can submit applications; this is exactly the reason why
> Apple has to control things.
>
> [..]
>
> [..]
>
> [..]

So do we assume that these products are actually going to be available
or can we only hope that they might fail the approval process ;-)

Well, at least forewarned is forearmed, at least I now know one
publisher to avoid putting on my phone.

Joanna

On 2008-07-04 16:57:11 +1000, Joanna Carter <joanna> said:

> Diego a écrit :
>> So do we assume that these products are actually going to be available
> or can we only hope that they might fail the approval process ;-)
>
> Well, at least forewarned is forearmed, at least I now know one
> publisher to avoid putting on my phone.
>
> Joanna

This may be is a revolution in UI design and they are simply ahead of
their time. ;)

Really, so what if the GUI elements have been applied with a shotgun?

If there's a market for a more expensive, cuter-looking version,
someone will write one. If there isn't, then people can buy this one
and use it.

FIRST: Reliability
SECOND: Functionality
THIRD: Usability
FOURTH: Looks

This falls short on #4 and probably #3, but it's #1 and #2 that
probably matter more, IMHO.

- Roddy

In general I agree but would reorder your list a little
> THIRD: Usability
> FIRST: Reliability
> SECOND: Functionality
> FOURTH: Looks

Or that order:
> FIRST: Reliability
> THIRD: Usability
> SECOND: Functionality
> FOURTH: Looks

But usability is more important than functionality, if something isn't
usable you will not (or very seldomly) use it. Dependent on the aim of a
program different degrees of usability are acceptable. But most of the
time you want to save time using programs to solve things that you could
also do without a computer (but less efficiently). So the main part of
the functionality is often usability.

Even in science and academia it makes no sense to build systems that
work in theory but have an output that is just no usable because it is
badly presented. Think of gathering and evaluating data in physics or
economics. Getting data which isn't understandable is worthless.

Usability is/should be really a key-point in software design.

I really think priorities need to be changed. There is so many software
out there that is feature-laden but badly integrated and badly designed.
The eye-candy software is often among the badly designed software, looks
instead of usability.

Delphinian wrote:

> Usability is/should be really a key-point in software design.

100% agree.

But, I'm sticking with my original order ;-) And, that's because I
didn't really define what I meant be functionality:

By functionality, I don't mean the # of bells and whistles. Rather, the
core 'job' that the target market needs it to perform. My decision
process in buying/evaluating software is a bit like this:-

#1: Does it actually do the job I'm looking to buy it for? eg "compile
code to executable", "ftp files to a server".
#2: Is it reliable?
#3: Is it easy, elegant and intuitive to use?
#4: Does it look good?

Sometimes, it's difficult to split #3 and #4, because you rarely see
highly 'usable' software that looks bad, as good 'usability design'
does involve removing visual clutter.

- Roddy

On 2008-07-04 23:49:31 +1000, "Roddy Pratt" <spam> said:

> Really, so what if the GUI elements have been applied with a shotgun?
>
> If there's a market for a more expensive, cuter-looking version,
> someone will write one. If there isn't, then people can buy this one
> and use it.
>
> FIRST: Reliability
> SECOND: Functionality
> THIRD: Usability
> FOURTH: Looks
>
> This falls short on #4 and probably #3, but it's #1 and #2 that
> probably matter more, IMHO.
>
> - Roddy

Are we to deduce from your comments that your UI design subscribes to
the examples given in the first post for this thread? :)

If the UI elements have been applied with a shotgun then most probably
the same amount of care was been given to the rest of the application.
i.e. not much at all. The UI shows how much a developer cares about
their craft. Has thought about how the user interacts with the app. Not
only should the core be well crafted, it should also ooze out to the
UI. Why? Because the UI is what people judge your app on at first and
throughout they life of your app. They have to deal with your UI. And
if it sucks, then they'll think, so does your app.

But really, if someone makes a statement such as, "Really, so what if
the GUI elements have been applied with a shotgun?", then it's not
someone I (or most good developers) would want on their team. You'll be
better off finding someone who cares about the art of software
development.

"Diego" wrote:
>
> Are we to deduce from your comments that your UI design subscribes to the
> examples given in the first post for this thread? :)
>
> If the UI elements have been applied with a shotgun then most probably the
> same amount of care was been given to the rest of the application. i.e.
> not much at all. The UI shows how much a developer cares about their
> craft. Has thought about how the user interacts with the app. Not only
> should the core be well crafted, it should also ooze out to the UI. Why?
> Because the UI is what people judge your app on at first and throughout
> they life of your app. They have to deal with your UI. And if it sucks,
> then they'll think, so does your app.

Considering this is the iPhone touch screen, the UI for The Athlete's
Calculator and TripLog/1040 don't appear to me to be nearly as bad as you
imply, so why don't you demonstrate your skill as a graphic designer and
draw Photoshop mock-ups of your idea of how a well crafted, ooze out UI,
would look for either of these apps.

http://stevenscreek.com/iPhone/athletecalc.htm
http://stevenscreek.com/iPhone/triplog.h

> But really, if someone makes a statement such as, "Really, so what if the
> GUI elements have been applied with a shotgun?", then it's not someone I
> (or most good developers) would want on their team. You'll be better off
> finding someone who cares about the art of software development.

I've always held the belief that most good developers aren't good graphic
designers but I'm more than willing to have you change my opinion. :)

On 2008-07-06 15:24:09 +1000, "I.P. Nichols" <NoSpan> said:

> "Diego" wrote:
>
> Considering this is the iPhone touch screen, the UI for The Athlete's
> Calculator and TripLog/1040 don't appear to me to be nearly as bad as
> you imply, so why don't you demonstrate your skill as a graphic
> designer and draw Photoshop mock-ups of your idea of how a well
> crafted, ooze out UI, would look for either of these apps.
>
> [..]
> [..]

The calculator isn't too bad. Not great. But the TripLog isn't too bad?
Reminds me of the VB developer's work from the early-mid 90's.

>
>> But really, if someone makes a statement such as, "Really, so what if
>> the GUI elements have been applied with a shotgun?", then it's not
>> someone I (or most good developers) would want on their team. You'll be
>> better off finding someone who cares about the art of software
>> development.
>
> I've always held the belief that most good developers aren't good
> graphic designers but I'm more than willing to have you change my
> opinion. :)

I agree. I never said otherwise. But even a developer that's not a
great UI designer can still do a good job. If you want to do a great
job because you're not a great designer, then get someone to do it. But
read the quote about "shotgun UI". That sort of thinking leads to rally
bad UIs. Plain and simple. And if you are fine with "shotgun UIs" then
you don't really care about your software.

On 2008-07-06 15:24:09 +1000, "I.P. Nichols" <NoSpan> said:

> "Diego" wrote:
>
> Considering this is the iPhone touch screen, the UI for The Athlete's
> Calculator and TripLog/1040 don't appear to me to be nearly as bad as
> you imply,

In fact, exactly because this is the iPhone touch screen these UIs
should be a lot better. They are more of the mediocre mish-mash UIs you
see on Palms and Windows Mobile software.

On 2008-07-06 15:24:09 +1000, "I.P. Nichols" <NoSpan> said:

> "Diego" wrote:
>
> Considering this is the iPhone touch screen, the UI for The Athlete's
> Calculator and TripLog/1040 don't appear to me to be nearly as bad as
> you imply, so why don't you demonstrate your skill as a graphic
> designer and draw Photoshop mock-ups of your idea of how a well
> crafted, ooze out UI, would look for either of these apps.

Staying with "nearly as bad as yo imply" will lead to the third item in
this diagram.

http://stuffthathappens.com/blog/2008/03/05/simplicity/

On Jul 4, 11:49 pm, "Roddy Pratt" <s> wrote:
> Really, so what if the GUI elements have been applied with a shotgun?
>
> If there's a market for a more expensive, cuter-looking version,
> someone will write one. If there isn't, then people can buy this one
> and use it.
>
> FIRST: Reliability
> SECOND: Functionality
> THIRD: Usability
> FOURTH: Looks
>
> This falls short on #4 and probably #3, but it's #1 and #2 that
> probably matter more, IMHO.
>
> - Roddy

In a world full of programmers this would be the correct order.
Unfortunately, most of the world aren't programmers. Why do people buy
the expensive pair of jeans when the cheap oned (probable made in the
same Chinese sweatshop) will last, fit and operate just as well?
Because of image and looks is why. In the 'real world', ie the actual
order is more like

FIRST: Looks
SECOND: Usability
THIRD: Functionality
FORTH: Reliability.

Craig.

"Diego" wrote:
>
> The calculator isn't too bad. Not great. But the TripLog isn't too bad?
> Reminds me of the VB developer's work from the early-mid 90's.

Wonder what the Barclay Brothers would say about your VB developers remark?
<g>

>> I've always held the belief that most good developers aren't good graphic
>> designers but I'm more than willing to have you change my opinion. :)
>
> I agree. I never said otherwise. But even a developer that's not a great
> UI designer can still do a good job. If you want to do a great job because
> you're not a great designer, then get someone to do it. But read the quote
> about "shotgun UI". That sort of thinking leads to rally bad UIs. Plain
> and simple. And if you are fine with "shotgun UIs" then you don't really
> care about your software.

If I were to attempt an iPhone UI I'm not sure it would pass the "shotgun"
test but why not show us how you would design the UI for the TripLog app.

"Diego" wrote:
>>
>> Considering this is the iPhone touch screen, the UI for The Athlete's
>> Calculator and TripLog/1040 don't appear to me to be nearly as bad as
>> you imply,
>
> In fact, exactly because this is the iPhone touch screen these UIs
> should be a lot better. They are more of the mediocre mish-mash UIs you
> see on Palms and Windows Mobile software.

So why not show us your "should be a lot better" iPhone UI?